14 ms·

It’s a breach of contract, and it’s wrong. However, when Qualcomm sells its tech, it should factor in this counterparty risk and decide if it is still worth it.

by majia 8y ago

It’s a breach of contract, and it’s wrong. However, when Qualcomm sells its tech, it should factor in this counterparty risk and decide if it is still worth it. I’m not defending this kind of inexcusable behavior; I’m just suggesting free trade means Qualcomm or any private business can make its own decision.

cjblomqvist 8y ago
As long as I'm not misunderstanding you, it seems you are confusing free trade with free to make a decision or not. Free trade means you are able to sell (or buy) things across borders free from government intervention. In this case, the government says you can only sell if you pay a form of tax (paid by IP rather than money). In particular, what people believe is unfair is how these barriers are applied unequal. If Chinese companies want to sell to the US, it's free of such hinders. The other way around, on the other hand, it's not. (obviously this is not true considering the latest tolls and what not, but that's the core premise anyway). Btw. Compare this to a situation when somebody is asking you to kill someone, or they'll kill you. You're free to make a decision, but not necessarily free as what people usually refer to when talking about freedom. Source: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_trade https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_trade
- majia 8y ago
  I do agree with you on the general notion of free trade. But in this particular case, there is no mention of any barrier imposed on qualcomm products; the deal is about jointly creating a new product. What I disagree is claiming free trade while suggesting qualcomm should not do certain deals for national interest reasons.
  - cjblomqvist 8y ago
    Ah, I did misread you! I would guess it's rather complicated though, as it might be part of a bigger "agreement" with the Chinese government in order to ensure smooth business in general - but that's of course only speculation on my part.
  - phkahler 8y ago
    >> But in this particular case, there is no mention of any barrier imposed on qualcomm products; the deal is about jointly creating a new product. There is no mention, but often what happens is a company wants to do business in china and is told no while being presented an offer like this. >> What I disagree is claiming free trade while suggesting qualcomm should not do certain deals for national interest reasons. I agree with you that a company is free to make decisions any way it wants within the law. This is why we have ITAR to protect against weapons tech going to the wrong places. But if the US took a similar position with regard to other tech besides war-making, these deals wouldn't be legal. I wouldn't suggest we're having an economic war, but all nations are in economic competition and the stakes are potentially very high.

by majia 8y ago

cjblomqvist 8y ago

As long as I'm not misunderstanding you, it seems you are confusing free trade with free to make a decision or not. Free trade means you are able to sell (or buy) things across borders free from government intervention. In this case, the government says you can only sell if you pay a form of tax (paid by IP rather than money). In particular, what people believe is unfair is how these barriers are applied unequal. If Chinese companies want to sell to the US, it's free of such hinders. The other way around, on the other hand, it's not. (obviously this is not true considering the latest tolls and what not, but that's the core premise anyway). Btw. Compare this to a situation when somebody is asking you to kill someone, or they'll kill you. You're free to make a decision, but not necessarily free as what people usually refer to when talking about freedom. Source: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_trade https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_trade

majia 8y ago
I do agree with you on the general notion of free trade. But in this particular case, there is no mention of any barrier imposed on qualcomm products; the deal is about jointly creating a new product. What I disagree is claiming free trade while suggesting qualcomm should not do certain deals for national interest reasons.
- cjblomqvist 8y ago
  Ah, I did misread you! I would guess it's rather complicated though, as it might be part of a bigger "agreement" with the Chinese government in order to ensure smooth business in general - but that's of course only speculation on my part.
- phkahler 8y ago
  >> But in this particular case, there is no mention of any barrier imposed on qualcomm products; the deal is about jointly creating a new product. There is no mention, but often what happens is a company wants to do business in china and is told no while being presented an offer like this. >> What I disagree is claiming free trade while suggesting qualcomm should not do certain deals for national interest reasons. I agree with you that a company is free to make decisions any way it wants within the law. This is why we have ITAR to protect against weapons tech going to the wrong places. But if the US took a similar position with regard to other tech besides war-making, these deals wouldn't be legal. I wouldn't suggest we're having an economic war, but all nations are in economic competition and the stakes are potentially very high.